14161 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Backgammon, Yatzy, and more!
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Oh come on...you cant be serious, if both of you call the Queens Gambit a real gambit...
Obviously you lack knowledge on Queens gambit. Otherwise you knew that there are several sharp gambit systems in Slav defense for example.
Might be, but 1.d4 d5 2.c4 is not an actual gambit. I don't mean to argue with you since you're a NM and obviously know better than me, but those several lines of the Slav Defence are just a little part of the QG.
These "several lines of Slav" are not "just a little part" and are not only possible gambit lines in QG. Lets take this QGA line for example 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 3.e4 e5 4.Nf3 exd4 5.Bc4. A real gambit line with large amount of theory.
Queen's gambit isn't a real gambit. You can point to specific lines that happen after the Queen's gambit which are gambits but 1.d4 d5 2.c4 isn't a real gambit. You are committing the fallacy of composition if you think the Queen's gambit is a true gambit. Krestez and Dark Falcon are right.
You are very arrogant to come into a thread saying 'obviously you lack knowledge' when his point about the Queen's gambit not being a real gambit is a valid one. It is common knowledge that the Queen's gambit is not a true gambit.
I`m getting sick from these arrogant patzers, praising cheap crappy gambits and belittling more solid openings, which may give no less interesting play in the hands of skilled players.
I am not 100% sure the Scotch Gambit is a real gambit. Where does white go down a pawn?
1.e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Bc4 Nf6 5. e5 d5 6. Bb5 Ne4 7. Nxd4 is not a gambit. It can also arise via a Two Knights move order.
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Bc4 Nf6 5. O-O Bc5 is the still rather famous Max Lang Attack, which is again reachable with a Two Knights move order.
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Bc4 Bc5 5. Ng5 Nh6 6. Nxf7 Nxf7 7. Bxf7+ Kxf7 8. Qh5+ g6 9. Qxc5 Material is even.
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Bc4 Bc5 5. c3 Nf6 6. cxd4 (might as well put 6. e5 d5 here as well. This is not a gambit and is a line of the 4. c3 Giuco Piano) 6...Bb4+ 7. Nc3 (7. Bd2 Bxd2 8. Nbd2 d5 not a gambit and a line of the 4. c3 Giuco Piano) 7...Nxe4 8. O-O Bxc3 9. d5 Ne5 10. Qe2 O-O 11. bxc3 Nxc4 12. Qxc4 Nd6 and yes White is a pawn down, we have been fallowing Gashimov-Dominquez Perez 19th Amber Rapids 2010. Which by the way was played with the traditional move order.
So yeah, might as well say the parts of the Scotch Gambit that are really gambits are a small part of the Scotch Gambit.
My favourite gambit is the fried liver attack (surprised nobody mentioned this)
That isn't a gambit.
Your illustration is the mainline in the Two Knights (C58-C59 in ECO). The Fried Liver is classified C57, as are the Lolli and Traxler.The Fried Liver is a gambit. White sacrifices a piece for a pawn and an exposed Black king. The response that you offer is one of several ways to avoid this dangerous gambit.
I give the Benko Gambit a go from time to time
Are you joking? Have you really never seen 7...bxc6 before?
Maybe the Traxler Counter-Attack (Crazy gambit). I love to show the variations to my friends. They usually say WTF and then: What happened? How the hell did black win this? Indeed the 5. Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6. Kf1 goes crazy sometimes.
I have but meh.
That wasn't part of the main line that I was talking about.
You are welcome chesshole...how can the Queens Gambit be called a real gambit, when 98% of all serious players are declining, because its much better to decline than accepting pawn.
A gambit player takes the risk of being outplayed by the opponent, if he ACCEPTS the gambit.
There is a general principle which nearly everyone knows.
You can only refute a gambit, if you accept it!
This principle doesnt apply to the Queens Gambit, pacific!
Changed my mind. My new fav gambit is the jerome gambit, very underated
5/26/2016 - Chr. Wiehe, Nationaltidende, 1884
by fistlah 6 minutes ago
The Sicilian Dragon
by Lucia243 15 minutes ago
by macer75 16 minutes ago
by MistApollo4 30 minutes ago
Is it weird to play for a draw in a casual game against equally rated opponent
by Julius-Geezer 39 minutes ago
5/25/2016 - From Side To Side
by BlargDragon 49 minutes ago
need some opinions on new boards I printed
by RussBell 56 minutes ago
AT HOME WITH THE STARS OF CHESS.COM!
by gerberk 56 minutes ago
Just lost a two paragraph post. Thanks
by BlargDragon 57 minutes ago
Learning the London System.
by a10pro 61 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2016 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!